The Nixon/Gore Parallel

[keopeli]

Nixon and Gore both lost controversial elections in razor-thin defeats. Both conceded defeat and publicly refused to contest the election in order to prevent a "constitutional crisis."

Nixon and Gore both avoided leading the country during the onset of a war of agression by the US into an impovrished nation.

Nixon and Gore both became part of the cultural movements of the time. Nixon represented the "silent majority" of voters. This included the massive population of white southerners and future evangelicals who were enduring the cultural backlash of the civil rights movement. Gore aligned himself with the "Inconvenient Truth" that the environment was being significantly impacted by human behavior and thus with the growing constituency of the Environmental Movement as well as victims of recent catastrophic hurricanes which the government largely ignored.

==

That's about where the parallels end, unless you can think of more. By all accounts, Al Gore is a completely different individual and leader than Richard Nixon. But, historically, their political paths bear a striking resemblence.

I'll admit the comparison gives me hope. Perhaps Bush sacrificed his Republican majority when he invaded Iraq, the same way Johnson did when he signed the Civil Rights Act. Perhaps Americans will once again turn to the alternative that was rejected 8 years before in reaction to unrest. Perhaps Gore is electable.

[liberal N proud]

1. Let's hope that Gore is the opposite of Nixon if his career takes him

to the the White House in the future.
I hope that he can turn this country around if elected, it will take one hell of a leader to bring us back from the brink which this current regime has us.

[MrBenchley]

2. Uh, Nixon contested the 1960 election bitterly

This "Nixon conceded gracefully for the good of the country" is revisionist horseshit from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and the Nazional Review. In real history, Nixon was his usual dishonest ugly conniving self.

[keopeli]

9. Your point is well taken.

Publically, Nixon refused to contest the election. It's this public persona that I was referencing, as I did with Gore as well.

However, privately, Nixon pursued the election results in court well into 1961. The circumstances were extraordinarily messy in Illinois and Alabama especially. While he eventually gave up the fight, he remained bitter about his loss for a long time, especially with regard to the media.

Comparing my comments to Rush seems a bit unfair, but I thank you for your thoughts.

Peace.

[MrBenchley]

13. Even today, it's accepted right wing gospel

that if it weren't for Daley, Nixon would have won...although there was no evidence Daley did anything, and a shift of Illinois' electoral votes STILL would have left Nixon short of a win.

[Clark2008]

10. Gosh, I actually agree with you for once.

I hate seeing threads that compare my former senator - our VP and real president - to Nixon for this reason.

[MrBenchley]

12. Ironically the whole "Nixon was SO gracious" lie

began as a way to attack Al Gore during the vote count in Florida.

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Both endured hostility from MSM....

... more pronounced in Gore's case; and more unfair.

Gore's secretary was named 'Nixon' and Nixon's secretary was named 'Gore'. (OK I made that one up)

Re. your last point: Gore is eminently electable; might be the only first tier DEM who *is*; and that's no joke.

[Clark2008]

11. But the corporate media wasn't the corporate media in

Nixon's day: it was more honest, better educated and had a better work ethic. It wasn't overrun with beauty pageant winners, Ken dolls and right-wing sycophants.

Nixon was pummeled by the press because he deserved it. Gore is pummeled by the press because GE wouldn't make as much money if he were president.

[Totally Committed]

4. When I read the title of the OP, I thought...

"Oh, here we go again...", rolled my eyes, but read the post anyway. I'm glad I did, as it was very insightful. I thought it would be a list of "parallels" that would equate them in some way, as "parallels" can sometimes do, but it wasn't.

As you say, their political paths bear a striking resemblence, but only in trajectory... This is more than a set of parallels. It's almost as if it's more a comparison of lights and darks, yins and yangs... two roads diverging in the woods, so to speak. It's more a comparison of two Parties, and the actions they took, that may turn whole constituencies against them for years. It's the actions taken that made the outward trajectory the parallel, and those actions are the things that constitute the difference: Bush's illegal, immoral, unilateral war; Johnson's enactment of a law legitimizing the human rights of ALL Americans. How could any two actions be more UNALIKE? And, yet, each found a constituency that it offended so deeply, it turned peole away from the Parties they represent(ed).

Say what you will about parallels and consequences, but if we had to lose a constituency, I'd rather have lost them over the affirmation of human rights of all Americans than the innate denial of the human rights of the people of another nation. One loss is about compassion and dignity granted, and the other is about compassion and dignity denied.

That's what the "parallels" between George W. Bush and Al Gore are really about. I hate to take it to such a low denominator, because what I'm about to say boils it down to a point where all the real complexities and nuances are gone, but it truly about their individual Party's visions of America... one being WRONG and one being RIGHT. I'm proud that my Party is on the side of the angels, so to speak, in this comparison.

But, it only enrages me that this Party is on the verge of losing its way again. It appears that we have decided that to succeed, we need to triangulate toward the dark side, to forget our true roots in fainess, and equality, and become more like the other side. We elect and embrace war-mongers over peacemakers; we lionize corporate-friendly economic and social strategies over truly compassionate plans and safety-nets to lift up and support even the poorest among us; we sit quietly as those we elect to represent us "go along to get along" for no other reason than to keep getting re-elected, while our Constitutional rights and guarantees are being eroded, one by one.

The Democratic Party needs to stand up and stand for something again or we might as well just throw our lot in with the Republicans and let the dark side win. Because if we become more and more like them because we cynically believe it's the only way to win, it is THEY who will have truly won.

We are at a crossroads... I say we continue forward and not veer off to the right. It's the only way to keep these parallels lines truly parallel.

TC

[robbedvoter]

5. First of all, Gore WON!

The "thin" margin with Nixon is pure BS! While the Illinois results were questionable, if put in Nixon's column, it wouldn't have affected the election outcome - so that "thin margin' is as mythical as Gore's "loss".
These parallels were a GOP think tank production in 2000 to appease the robbed ("you'll get it next time).
We should not borrow their memes (i.e for "Political correctness")

[Totally Committed]

6. Taken literally, I agree with you...

I agree Al Gore actually won. I just saw the "parallels" as between the two as symbolic.

You are completely correct about this.

TC

[keopeli]

8. The parallel doesn't carry out to the nth detail.

If you want to get to the most minute points, their histories would not be parallel unless they received the same vote totals.

I'm just suggesting parallels in the general effect of the experience on the population. In both cases, the margin of victory was thin. Kennedy won the popular vote by just over 100,000 votes. Gore actually won the popular vote, but lost florida by a few hundred votes.

Both elections were very close and controversial because of it. Both elections were conceded based on avoiding a "constitutional crisis" despite some advisers suggesting they do otherwise.

As to Gore's "loss", that is the real, historical answer, like it or not. I believe he should have won and that election fraud tipped the scales, but I've been living in Bush world for 5 years because Gore lost and Bush won, as much as it pains me to say so.

Finally, I take no cues from the Republican talking points, nor do I change my views and expressions based on taboos or fear. And, if that's not enough, all of my parallel examples are post-election, making any parallel to Republican Propaganda from the 2000 election moot.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. they both cared for the environment. Nixon was the first enviro-president.

Gore should have been our second.

[NJ Democrats]

14. I noticed this

Both were Senators who were then VPs for 8 years under a popular Prez. They both lost/got the election stolen from them. 8 yrs later nixon won, I think Gore will do the same.

[durrrty libby]

15. I love how you think n/t

[AX10]

16. He most certainly could win in 2008!